It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

OBAMA Admin Committed Felonies by SPYING and UNMASKING TRUMPs Team For POLITICAL Purposes.

page: 6
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump being surveilled for about a year makes him the best vetted presidential candidate in American history.


Hey...good point! And if that surveillance also leads to prior Admin indictments, it's like hitting the mega jackpot.




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump being surveilled for about a year makes him the best vetted presidential candidate in American history.


Hey...good point! And if that surveillance also leads to prior Admin indictments, it's like hitting the mega jackpot.


Maybe the chant should be...

Lock Them Up

All that spying on Trump, and all they got is small hands.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

it is obvious to me that you didn't read....If you had you would not make such an ignorant statement....i was talking about what he knows from his past work in military intelligence and the intelligence arena ....While you may think his service to the country is NOTHING, I for one DO NOT!!....

When a person ask for immunity it does not make them guilty of anything....He is not not a fool and knows he would never get a fair trial because these same people just threw him under the bus.

But maybe he doesn't want to testify because it would put other people in harms way...And the information that he would have to reveal would put our National Security at risk.....



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
The Fox News article is a good read.



When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.




Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.


www.foxnews.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If Obama is off the hook, then liberals cannot complain if Trump uses the IC to gather intel on political opponent in the 2020 election with the pretext of spying on possible communications with foreign agents.


It's a little more complicated than that.

It's already been affirmed by Comey and others within the IC that no single individual, including the POTUS, has the authority to order surveillance on any individual American citizen.

Furthermore, somewhere between 11 & 16 intelligence officials have stated that their respective agencies have determined, (with high confidence) that Russia did in fact hack into the political campaigns computers and attempt to influence our election.

Comey also stated and confirmed that there is indeed, an ongoing FBI investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russians in that effort. This statement infers that there is at least some evidence of collusion that warrants an investigation.

Now I would just imagine that the IC regularly surveils the foreign governments and diplomats of our advisories and they would be in dereliction of duty if they failed to do so in this case once the hacking had been detected.

So, are you saying that no surveillance should be done the next time our IC detects political campaign interference by a foreign nation during the middle of a presidential election?

Are you saying we should do nothing just because we're in the middle of an election?

Or, should we just go ahead and allow foreign countries to run there own candidates in our elections?

There's a huge difference between Watergate and what happened here. In the Watergate scenario, Nixon was basically the equivalent of the Russians today.

It's pretty clear that the Russians were screwing with our election, we detected it and when the proper surveillance procedures were employed by the IC, we incidentally caught numerous Trump campaign officials conferring with the Russians. Go figure!

The really sad part is, Trump probably could order IC surveillance of his political opponents during the middle of a campaign and not lose a single vote among his supporters.

How pathetic is that?


However , it was incidental collection of private citizens during a FISA surveillance and Obama changed the rules in 2011 so that he could unmask names and use it for political purposes. It is wrong to do this. Sorry your totalitarian spy get no pass.


And where did you get your info regarding this 2011 rule change and subsequent unmasking? WND??

Comey testified under oath that there are only 20 people, (including himself) all with the DOJ who have the authority to order an unmasking of names in a surveillance report and last I checked, the position of POTUS didn't fall under the umbrella of the DOJ.

And.......even if Obama did have the authority to unmask, he wouldn't be allowed to do so for political purposes.

According to Comey's testimony, there has to be a damn good reason to request an unmasking of names in a surveillance report.

Personally, I think your just making sh#t up.


Who gives a flying squirrel Comey said that. I mean its not like the people in the Obama admin give a ^%$# about the rule of law. They just make it up as they go, whatever serves their purposes and it has nothing to do with whats right or has real merit. Just take Evelyn Farkas as a real example.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 3-4-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: paxnatus

When a person ask for immunity it does not make them guilty of anything.


Yeah, we'll tell that to Flynn because he's on record expressing his own opinion to the contrary.


originally posted by:
paxnatus

But maybe he doesn't want to testify because it would put other people in harms way...And the information that he would have to reveal would put our National Security at risk.....


I'll tell you what might put our national security at risk and that would be having undeclared foreign agents sitting in on intelligence briefings intended for an incoming POTUS.

They have classified hearings for sensitive information that can't be revealed in public and that's not what immunity is for anyway.

According to Flynn, immunity is for people who are guilty of criminal activity.

On top of that, the man is a proven liar. Just ask Mike Pence.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If Obama is off the hook, then liberals cannot complain if Trump uses the IC to gather intel on political opponent in the 2020 election with the pretext of spying on possible communications with foreign agents.


It's a little more complicated than that.

It's already been affirmed by Comey and others within the IC that no single individual, including the POTUS, has the authority to order surveillance on any individual American citizen.

Furthermore, somewhere between 11 & 16 intelligence officials have stated that their respective agencies have determined, (with high confidence) that Russia did in fact hack into the political campaigns computers and attempt to influence our election.

Comey also stated and confirmed that there is indeed, an ongoing FBI investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russians in that effort. This statement infers that there is at least some evidence of collusion that warrants an investigation.

Now I would just imagine that the IC regularly surveils the foreign governments and diplomats of our advisories and they would be in dereliction of duty if they failed to do so in this case once the hacking had been detected.

So, are you saying that no surveillance should be done the next time our IC detects political campaign interference by a foreign nation during the middle of a presidential election?

Are you saying we should do nothing just because we're in the middle of an election?

Or, should we just go ahead and allow foreign countries to run there own candidates in our elections?

There's a huge difference between Watergate and what happened here. In the Watergate scenario, Nixon was basically the equivalent of the Russians today.

It's pretty clear that the Russians were screwing with our election, we detected it and when the proper surveillance procedures were employed by the IC, we incidentally caught numerous Trump campaign officials conferring with the Russians. Go figure!

The really sad part is, Trump probably could order IC surveillance of his political opponents during the middle of a campaign and not lose a single vote among his supporters.

How pathetic is that?


However , it was incidental collection of private citizens during a FISA surveillance and Obama changed the rules in 2011 so that he could unmask names and use it for political purposes. It is wrong to do this. Sorry your totalitarian spy get no pass.


And where did you get your info regarding this 2011 rule change and subsequent unmasking? WND??

Comey testified under oath that there are only 20 people, (including himself) all with the DOJ who have the authority to order an unmasking of names in a surveillance report and last I checked, the position of POTUS didn't fall under the umbrella of the DOJ.

And.......even if Obama did have the authority to unmask, he wouldn't be allowed to do so for political purposes.

According to Comey's testimony, there has to be a damn good reason to request an unmasking of names in a surveillance report.

Personally, I think your just making sh#t up.


Who gives a flying squirrel Comey said that. I mean its not like the people in the Obama admin give a ^%$# about the rule of law. They just make it up as they go, whatever serves their purposes and it has nothing to do with whats right or has real merit. Just take Evelyn Farkas as a real example.
www.youtube.com...


That's your response and you're gonna sit there and accuse Obama of making it up as they go? Really? Now that's a joke!

If you're looking for someone who's making it up as they go, I'd suggest you begin your search in the bathroom mirror.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: M5xaz

Why is that a better question?

Do you conceive that for some reason they have to have the physical box to see the access to it over networks and the internet?

It's only "a better question" because the Democrats are not your team. The server is their property, American property, which was broken into and from which material was stolen by a foreign ENEMY of the United States.

The only way in which that's a bigger issue is pure partisanship.


No.
This is not partisanship.
Just plain standard practice (and common sense).
Example:
www.cnn.com...

In EVERY OTHER case where the FBI investigates cyber breach, like above, this has been done, both for legal "chain of evidence" reason and for forensic discovery and examination. Most of the required tools are NOT public domain...

Why once again is there special treatment for the DNC ?
Indeed, it goes against the interest of the DNC NOT to submit their server to the FBI, from a successful prosecution perspective, or for correctly identifying foreign intelligence actors, if any.
edit on 3-4-2017 by M5xaz because:



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
This is the epitome of fake news. You are, just like the other right wingers in this country, useful idiots that Russia prays on.


originally posted by: carewemust
April 2, 2017

If only 1/2 of this is true, the legacy of former President Barack H. Obama is about to go down the tubes. Nixon will be seen as a Saint, by comparison.

Excerpted from: www.wnd.com...

1) Surveillance targeting the Trump team during the Obama administration began months ago, even before the president had become the GOP nominee in July.

2) The spying on the Trump team had nothing to do with the collection of foreign intelligence or an investigation into Russia election interference.

3) The spying was done purely “for political purposes” that “have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team.”

4) The person who did the unmasking was someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world, and is not in the FBI.”

5) Congressional investigators know the name of at least one person who was unmasking names.

6) The initial surveillance on the Trump team led to “a number of names” being unmasked.

7) House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has known about the unmasking since January.

8) Two sources in the intelligence community told Nunes who did the unmasking and told him at least one of the names of someone in the Trump team who was unmasked. The sources also gave Nunes the serial numbers of the classified reports that documented the unmasking.

9) It took Nunes a number of weeks to figure out how to see those intelligence reports because the intelligence agencies were stonewalling him, and not allowing the chairman or other people to see them.

10) There were only two places Nunes could have seen the information: where the sources work, which would have blown their cover; and the Eisenhower Executive Office building on the White House grounds, which houses the National Security Council and has computers linked to the secure system containing the reports he sought.

11) Nunes got access to that system on March 21 with the help of two Trump administration officials.

From Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes's recent statements, we're looking at just the tip of the iceberg! Russians planting "fake news" to influence our election, is NOTHING compared to the felony crimes committed by the Obama Administration.

MUCH MORE AT: www.wnd.com...

-CareWeMust




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 11:54 PM
link   
If this is true, then there are a few immediate problems. If true, then Susan Rice lied when she denied any knowledge on the unmasking of names during a recent interview. If she lied like that, then there is something to hide. If there was nothing to hide with unmasking names, why lie? Next, if what we are hearing is true, that a lot of these things had nothing to do with Russia, nor any value for intelligence gathering with regards to National Security, then that is a major problem, as it looks like blantant spying and using the cover of incidental surveillance. What else could it be? Political purposes obviously.

The other question in this, is what other politicians fell under this "NET" of surveillance? Any other canditates? Current politicians? How far did this go?

Personally, I think this potentially could be a huge issue.
edit on 3-4-2017 by talisman because: text fix

edit on 3-4-2017 by talisman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Looks like Susan Rice will be going to jail. Rand wants her to testify under oath in front of congress and Jeff Session can appoint a prosecutor to indict her. This is just the beginning. Who else will go down with Susan Rice? Seems like the liberals are in hiding? They pushed it too far and now it's time for payback. Rice better bow down to Trump and beg for forgiveness or end up behind bars for 10 years. Susan lied under oath, so that is additional years on top of the ten years in prison. Time for her to throw some people under the bus.
edit on 4-4-2017 by amfirst1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

Susan Rice will implicate Loretta Lynch. Who knows where it will go from there. Unlike the empty Trump-Russia investigations, the House and Senate panels will have CLEAR EVIDENCE that the Obama Administration broke multiple laws. Slam-dunk.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
Looks like Susan Rice will be going to jail.


Yah...just like Hillary Clinton was going to jail for using email?

Right Wing world is bizzare...Fact free..

Experts Say Susan Rice Had Every Right To Request ‘Unmasking’ In Intel Reports
talkingpointsmemo.com...

Other notes of reality?
There are only 20 people in the entire Intelligence Community Authorized to "Unmask" US Citizens..And Susan Rice was not one of them.

A request can be made, but it is the Intelligence Community....CIA/FBI Anti-Espionage/NSA authorites who review the request and determine if the "Unmasking" is warranted and only for HIGHLY CRITICAL NATIONAL SECURITY issues.

So my question is...Why were Trump Officials caught up in a Russian Anti-Espionage investigation and the intelligence gathering?

Right Wingers like headlines when the evidence and facts aren't in...they Might not like the evidence and facts associated with their headlines.

Waiting on the Trump-Russian Collusion reports to be issued in a couple months...and the leaks to follow when GOP try to white-wash those reports..



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If Obama is off the hook, then liberals cannot complain if Trump uses the IC to gather intel on political opponent in the 2020 election with the pretext of spying on possible communications with foreign agents.


It's a little more complicated than that.

It's already been affirmed by Comey and others within the IC that no single individual, including the POTUS, has the authority to order surveillance on any individual American citizen.

Furthermore, somewhere between 11 & 16 intelligence officials have stated that their respective agencies have determined, (with high confidence) that Russia did in fact hack into the political campaigns computers and attempt to influence our election.

Comey also stated and confirmed that there is indeed, an ongoing FBI investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russians in that effort. This statement infers that there is at least some evidence of collusion that warrants an investigation.


Now I would just imagine that the IC regularly surveils the foreign governments and diplomats of our advisories and they would be in dereliction of duty if they failed to do so in this case once the hacking had been detected.

So, are you saying that no surveillance should be done the next time our IC detects political campaign interference by a foreign nation during the middle of a presidential election?

Are you saying we should do nothing just because we're in the middle of an election?

Or, should we just go ahead and allow foreign countries to run there own candidates in our elections?

There's a huge difference between Watergate and what happened here. In the Watergate scenario, Nixon was basically the equivalent of the Russians today.

It's pretty clear that the Russians were screwing with our election, we detected it and when the proper surveillance procedures were employed by the IC, we incidentally caught numerous Trump campaign officials conferring with the Russians. Go figure!

The really sad part is, Trump probably could order IC surveillance of his political opponents during the middle of a campaign and not lose a single vote among his supporters.

How pathetic is that?


However , it was incidental collection of private citizens during a FISA surveillance and Obama changed the rules in 2011 so that he could unmask names and use it for political purposes. It is wrong to do this. Sorry your totalitarian spy get no pass.


And where did you get your info regarding this 2011 rule change and subsequent unmasking? WND??

Comey testified under oath that there are only 20 people, (including himself) all with the DOJ who have the authority to order an unmasking of names in a surveillance report and last I checked, the position of POTUS didn't fall under the umbrella of the DOJ.

And.......even if Obama did have the authority to unmask, he wouldn't be allowed to do so for political purposes.

According to Comey's testimony, there has to be a damn good reason to request an unmasking of names in a surveillance report.

Personally, I think your just making sh#t up.


Who gives a flying squirrel Comey said that. I mean its not like the people in the Obama admin give a ^%$# about the rule of law. They just make it up as they go, whatever serves their purposes and it has nothing to do with whats right or has real merit. Just take Evelyn Farkas as a real example.
www.youtube.com...


That's your response and you're gonna sit there and accuse Obama of making it up as they go? Really? Now that's a joke!

If you're looking for someone who's making it up as they go, I'd suggest you begin your search in the bathroom mirror.

You first flatfish. Comey is covering for obama and Hillary big time. Why would anyone trust what he says ? That's the point I'm making. You bet he knew that Susan Rice made numerous requests to surveil Trump and that unmasked info was given to 16 intel agencies. You bet he knew there's no
Substance to allegations of Trump colluding with Rissua and that it's actually obama and friends who are the very ones who are security risk and using info for political purposes. I suggest you get your head out of the quicksand before ggdvredt of you gets sucked under.
circa.com...
Rice even had said she knew nothing about the unmasking. What a liar
I got my reference originally from The Hannity show whose guests did research and talked to intel people.
Obama mad a dash to French Polynesia recently where extradition rules might not apply.
This goes back to 2015 even. But Rice requesting unmasking around the time Trump accepted nomination. I'm pretty sure Hillary knew as she did make comments about Trump and Russia.
www.google.com...
www.westernjournalism.com... tent=2017-04-03&utm_campaign=manualpost
circa.com...
I
Don't know why this is so hard for Anti Trumpers to get
edit on 4-4-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: allsee4eye
If Obama is off the hook, then liberals cannot complain if Trump uses the IC to gather intel on political opponent in the 2020 election with the pretext of spying on possible communications with foreign agents.


It's a little more complicated than that.

It's already been affirmed by Comey and others within the IC that no single individual, including the POTUS, has the authority to order surveillance on any individual American citizen.

Furthermore, somewhere between 11 & 16 intelligence officials have stated that their respective agencies have determined, (with high confidence) that Russia did in fact hack into the political campaigns computers and attempt to influence our election.

Comey also stated and confirmed that there is indeed, an ongoing FBI investigation into whether or not the Trump campaign may have colluded with the Russians in that effort. This statement infers that there is at least some evidence of collusion that warrants an investigation.


Now I would just imagine that the IC regularly surveils the foreign governments and diplomats of our advisories and they would be in dereliction of duty if they failed to do so in this case once the hacking had been detected.

So, are you saying that no surveillance should be done the next time our IC detects political campaign interference by a foreign nation during the middle of a presidential election?

Are you saying we should do nothing just because we're in the middle of an election?

Or, should we just go ahead and allow foreign countries to run there own candidates in our elections?

There's a huge difference between Watergate and what happened here. In the Watergate scenario, Nixon was basically the equivalent of the Russians today.

It's pretty clear that the Russians were screwing with our election, we detected it and when the proper surveillance procedures were employed by the IC, we incidentally caught numerous Trump campaign officials conferring with the Russians. Go figure!

The really sad part is, Trump probably could order IC surveillance of his political opponents during the middle of a campaign and not lose a single vote among his supporters.

How pathetic is that?


However , it was incidental collection of private citizens during a FISA surveillance and Obama changed the rules in 2011 so that he could unmask names and use it for political purposes. It is wrong to do this. Sorry your totalitarian spy get no pass.


And where did you get your info regarding this 2011 rule change and subsequent unmasking? WND??

Comey testified under oath that there are only 20 people, (including himself) all with the DOJ who have the authority to order an unmasking of names in a surveillance report and last I checked, the position of POTUS didn't fall under the umbrella of the DOJ.

And.......even if Obama did have the authority to unmask, he wouldn't be allowed to do so for political purposes.

According to Comey's testimony, there has to be a damn good reason to request an unmasking of names in a surveillance report.

Personally, I think your just making sh#t up.


Who gives a flying squirrel Comey said that. I mean its not like the people in the Obama admin give a ^%$# about the rule of law. They just make it up as they go, whatever serves their purposes and it has nothing to do with whats right or has real merit. Just take Evelyn Farkas as a real example.
www.youtube.com...


That's your response and you're gonna sit there and accuse Obama of making it up as they go? Really? Now that's a joke!

If you're looking for someone who's making it up as they go, I'd suggest you begin your search in the bathroom mirror.

You first flatfish. Comey is covering for obama and Hillary big time. Why would anyone trust what he says ? That's the point I'm making. You bet he knew that Susan Rice made numerous requests to surveil Trump and that unmasked info was given to 16 intel agencies. You bet he knew there's no
Substance to allegations of Trump colluding with Rissua and that it's actually obama and friends who are the very ones who are security risk and using info for political purposes. I suggest you get your head out of the quicksand before ggdvredt of you gets sucked under.
circa.com...
Rice even had said she knew nothing about the unmasking. What a liar
I got my reference originally from The Hannity show whose guests did research and talked to intel people.
Obama mad a dash to French Polynesia recently where extradition rules might not apply.
This goes back to 2015 even. But Rice requesting unmasking around the time Trump accepted nomination. I'm pretty sure Hillary knew as she did make comments about Trump and Russia.
www.google.com...
www.westernjournalism.com... tent=2017-04-03&utm_campaign=manualpost
circa.com...
I
Don't know why this is so hard for Anti Trumpers to get


It's hard for us to get because, like your quoted text above, it's a load of delusional horsesh#t mixed with real names and current events.

I can't understand why it's so hard for Trump supporters to get the fact that Trump and his team weren't the ones being surveiled.

The IC was listening in on foreign adversaries suspected of election hacking and it just so happened that the conversations they were having were either with or about, Trump campaign representatives. Go figure!

Susan Rice was just doing her job and doing it quite well I might add.








edit on 4-4-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz




Why once again is there special treatment for the DNC ?
Indeed, it goes against the interest of the DNC NOT to submit their server to the FBI, from a successful prosecution perspective, or for correctly identifying foreign intelligence actors, if any.


Bingo! The only reason they wouldn't turn over their server for examination was the fact that they knew they hadn't been "hacked" but that the leak was internal. Or....there were things on the server they couldn't let the FBI see? But if nobody could actually examine the server, they could say whatever they wished, like "Russians" and nobody could prove otherwise.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Then why back in January were all the big players (BBC etc...) writing stories saying it was all about Trump, and they were getting warrants on other actors for the specific purpose of spying on Trump? And why were all the Democrats who are now saying that never happened because it's wrong saying it happened and shows how bad Trump is back then?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Flatfish

Then why back in January were all the big players (BBC etc...) writing stories saying it was all about Trump, and they were getting warrants on other actors for the specific purpose of spying on Trump? And why were all the Democrats who are now saying that never happened because it's wrong saying it happened and shows how bad Trump is back then?


Sorry, but you're going to need to be more specific because I'm not at all clear about what it is that you're asking.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.
A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

www.bbc.com...


Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia

While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates.

heatst.com...


a private server discovered in Trump Tower was connected to a Russian bank for potentially illegal purposes, the FBI’s counter-intelligence wing submitted two FISA requests about the possible financial and banking offenses connected to the server — the first of which was denied in June (and which named Trump) and the second which was more narrowly drawn up and thus granted in October.

www.salon.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

For starters, there are a number of "if this is true" statements in those articles, but just the same, it sounds to me like the IC was attempting to follow the money/influence trail that was discovered while surveillance was being done in an effort to discover the source of the election hacking.

Once nefarious activity has been detected, I believe it's there duty to follow that trail wherever it leads.

If their not allowed to investigate the people implicated by their current intelligence just because that person is American and in the middle of a campaign, we may as well just concede defeat.

I believe that some people will be going to jail before this is over and I'll just bet it won't be for illegal intelligence gathering.




top topics



 
68
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join